On the Waterfront is a powerful film about working class conflict on the docks of Manhattan or Brooklyn, I wasn't sure about which one it was. The drama is searing. I was taken into the film the whole way through. I wasn't bored or distracted throughout the action. And, of course, Marlon Brando makes the film. His passion is incredible. His method acting style is something of legend. Terry Malloy is one of the most memorable characters in film history. I still can't get over his legendary speech to his brother when his brother is supposed to kill him but ends up dead himself. "I could a been a contender, I could a been somebody." So memorable. One of the most famous lines in film history. And the film is great too. The class conflict, the struggle for survival, it raises so many questions; why don't the docker workers leave the docks? Isn't there a better life somewhere else? Why do they keep coming back to work at the docks? It also reveals Capitalism's faults. The union which is supposed to act on behalf of the workers is absolutely corrupt. And anyone who gets in their way is murdered. It's all hopeless. But the hero becomes Terry Malloy. he testifies against union boss. And, we are led to believe that it leads to his downfall.
Under the major conflict between Terry Malloy and the union boss is a love story which is fraught with tension. Terry was the last person to see his love interest's brother who was killed by the union. Terry wants to help her, but at first she resists. It is only when Terry breaks down her door and they go searching for Terry's brother that they truely consummate their love.
It's a great finish, but it leaves open ends. What does happen to the union boss? Do the workers ever get fair work? It seems like they never will. I remember Guliani cleaning up the docks from the mob years ago. But did that do anything? Do doc workers still work for peanuts with bad working conditions? My grandfather who had only a 6th grade education worked in factories his whole life. He was one of the lucky ones. His wages put my father and my uncles through college and they have all gone on to better lives. But what about the multitude of others who weren't so lucky?
Kazan named names at the HUAC committee meetings and he drew flack for it. It was only years later that he was rehabalitated and given a life time achievement award by the academy. It's too bad it wasn't earlier.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
thoughts on Fellini's 8 1/2
Fellini is great. This film about filmmaking is a very cerebral gaze at how films get made. I've seen the film several times and this is the first time which some of the meanings became very clear to me. It seems that Fellini shows a filmmaker and the trials and blocks he goes through to make a film. The flashback sequences seem to be windows into the filmmaking process. When I was writing my screenplay or reading about film theory, history, and practice I often had flashbacks which Fellini makes very clear. He thinks about his parents, his childhood at school, the lovers he's had, all are stories within the story about his struggle to make a film with a giant spaceship in it. And he doesn't make the film. I suppose it's a warning to filmmakers about the stresses you could encounter while trying to write a film and then trying to make it.
I often catch myself in blocks or dream like flashbacks to my childhood or to lovers I've had, or when I was back in school, or when I just couldn't think of anything, and I questioned what I was doing and if it really mattered that I wrote a film. In the scene where Fellini goes to see the Bishop or Cardinal to confess his sins was informative to me. It seemed that Fellini needed some kind of direction or clarification. Some way out of his block that he was stuck in.
Yet he returns again and again to his past. What was he trying to discover? What was he looking for in his past that might make him write the film? I guess it is a writer's problem to constantly relive life to write. Someone said that was how writers operate. They go over life again and again, reliving the pain and joy until it's empty and they feel unblocked enough to write or shoot. Yet the yearning returns. The search for life or a story something that explains things or makes life livable.
I should watch it again. This film was after La Dolce Vida which turned Fellini into an international phenomenon. It also singled the end of the Italian neo-realism movement. After Fellini Italian film lost much of it's momentum. Of course there was Pasolini and Bertolucci, but in terms of a movement things didn't progress as much after Fellini. He was the apogee of the neo-realist movement. And 8 1/2 is his magnum opus.
I often catch myself in blocks or dream like flashbacks to my childhood or to lovers I've had, or when I was back in school, or when I just couldn't think of anything, and I questioned what I was doing and if it really mattered that I wrote a film. In the scene where Fellini goes to see the Bishop or Cardinal to confess his sins was informative to me. It seemed that Fellini needed some kind of direction or clarification. Some way out of his block that he was stuck in.
Yet he returns again and again to his past. What was he trying to discover? What was he looking for in his past that might make him write the film? I guess it is a writer's problem to constantly relive life to write. Someone said that was how writers operate. They go over life again and again, reliving the pain and joy until it's empty and they feel unblocked enough to write or shoot. Yet the yearning returns. The search for life or a story something that explains things or makes life livable.
I should watch it again. This film was after La Dolce Vida which turned Fellini into an international phenomenon. It also singled the end of the Italian neo-realism movement. After Fellini Italian film lost much of it's momentum. Of course there was Pasolini and Bertolucci, but in terms of a movement things didn't progress as much after Fellini. He was the apogee of the neo-realist movement. And 8 1/2 is his magnum opus.
thoughts on Where to Invade Next
I wasn't overly joyed by the end of this film. I watched it and I felt like most of the information which Moore imparts I already knew. Perhaps it's because I majored in European History and follow Europe more than I do the US. Still a lot of his points are shallow and merely made to drum up a dislike of America. The film juxtaposes images of people in Norway with images of police brutality in US prisons. It makes a point, but there is no nuance. It is completely one sided. Yet, that is how Moore operates. He is a partisan. He takes a side and argues for it without referencing opposing arguments which might prove him wrong.
Moore seems to be drumming up support for Bernie Sanders. He points out how much Europeans have, while Americans seem to have it so bad. He fails to mention all the taxes that Europeans pay for the benefits he describes. When he show an Italian couple living the "dolce vida" in Italy, he doesn't mention the Italy has high unemployment, and anemic economy and fears being taken over by the Chinese. Things aren't so rosy in Europe as Moore leads us to believe. I really didn't like the images of the prison violence as they were presented. As violent and shocking as the appear it only perputuates a stereotype of African-Americans as prisoners and felons. It doesn't show any of the accomplishments of African- Americans and how they are accepted and work in American society as equals in many ways. Yet I would caution my own statement with evidence which shows the American prison system as overwhelming African- American and the stories about police violence which is directed disproportionately at young, black men. If Moore wanted to use the images from police brutality, why not make a film about just that? Why not make a film which is sorely in need? Instead he goes of to Europe and shows alternatives which are probably not feasible for a country like the US which is incredibly more multi-cultureal than a place like Iceland or Norway.
Still it is clear the America needs reforms in many areas. And Moore is out there, seemingly alone, carrying the flag, sparking debate and hopefully causing change for the better.
Moore seems to be drumming up support for Bernie Sanders. He points out how much Europeans have, while Americans seem to have it so bad. He fails to mention all the taxes that Europeans pay for the benefits he describes. When he show an Italian couple living the "dolce vida" in Italy, he doesn't mention the Italy has high unemployment, and anemic economy and fears being taken over by the Chinese. Things aren't so rosy in Europe as Moore leads us to believe. I really didn't like the images of the prison violence as they were presented. As violent and shocking as the appear it only perputuates a stereotype of African-Americans as prisoners and felons. It doesn't show any of the accomplishments of African- Americans and how they are accepted and work in American society as equals in many ways. Yet I would caution my own statement with evidence which shows the American prison system as overwhelming African- American and the stories about police violence which is directed disproportionately at young, black men. If Moore wanted to use the images from police brutality, why not make a film about just that? Why not make a film which is sorely in need? Instead he goes of to Europe and shows alternatives which are probably not feasible for a country like the US which is incredibly more multi-cultureal than a place like Iceland or Norway.
Still it is clear the America needs reforms in many areas. And Moore is out there, seemingly alone, carrying the flag, sparking debate and hopefully causing change for the better.
Wednesday, February 24, 2016
thoughts on Roermer's Postermodernism and the invalidation of traditional narrative
Roemer's book is a deep and incredibly well thought out book. It's views about story and storytellers are very insightful. It ranges from the classics like Oedipus Rex to structuralism in it's discussion of literary theory. There is a lot to digest from the book. It's most memorable statement is the "every story is over before it begins." That writers of films know the ending. What is in question is how the filmmaker gets to the end. I have heard to this idea before in film class. That with the star system and audience polling, etc. It becomes obvious that the big star is going to be the hero. What isn't know is how the star is going to get to the ending. That is where creativity comes into play. Writers must keep audiences paying attention and entertained until they get to the ending and return to stasis. I was watching The Revenant by Inarrutu and this theory held true. The audience knows that Dicapprio is going to win in the end. It wouldn't be right if he didn't. He probably wouldn't take the role if he was going to lose or come out somehow harmed in the end. So we have to watch and see how he gets the bad guy and comes out triumphant by the end of the film. We see it all the time in films. It's what we expect and if it didn't happen there would be a lot less box office.
Roemer quotes everyone from Nieztche to Levi-Strauss. Another idea he had was the film is more than just an escape. We are drawn to stories because they explain how things are. We want to understand ourselves and the World around us and to do that we resort to stories. Films, plays, novels, etc. they all seek to explain who we are and why the World is the way it is. The book is great. Much better than some of the other books I've read about film and writing.
Roemer quotes everyone from Nieztche to Levi-Strauss. Another idea he had was the film is more than just an escape. We are drawn to stories because they explain how things are. We want to understand ourselves and the World around us and to do that we resort to stories. Films, plays, novels, etc. they all seek to explain who we are and why the World is the way it is. The book is great. Much better than some of the other books I've read about film and writing.
thoughts on Easy Rider
this is the classic counterculture film from the 1960's. The film was made in 1969 and was a big success. The first time I saw it was in High School in the late 90s. It was a tremendous experience. It was the first time I had seen anyone smoke weed on camera. The film is short, it runs about 90 minutes. When I watched it tonight the first hour went by very quickly. There isn't much dialogue either. I read the screenplay and it has a lot of camera directions such close up, etc. Yet the dialogue that comes through is meaningful and does have some weight. The two scenes I thought that expressed the films theme were when Fonda and Hopper are at the hippie commune and when they pick up George and take him along heading to Mardi Gras. For all it's hippie sunshine, the film is brutal and has a very pessimistic ending. I read where Paul Schrader criticized the film for demonizing Southern racists, and the film is true to that criticism. Yet the one sided portrayal of Southerners as all racists and haters of the counterculture does have some merit. At the time America was divided over serious issues like desegregation, the Vietnam War, and people, like hippies, who wanted something different then the strict conformity in which much of the county lived in at the time, and definitely in the South.
As they drove through the Southern town I was wondering what state they were in? Was it Texas or Arkansas? I guess it was a generalized depiction of a small Southern town claiming that they were all the same. And what the small town Southerners do to the hippie bikers is brutal. The murder of George is a violent and bastardly act. Before George dies he talks about why the townsfolk don't like Hopper or Fonda. He says it's because the hippies represent freedom. Freedom is easy to talk about, but harder to live when your being bought and sold in the marketplace. I took this as the writers of the film saying the Capitalism overruled any notions of democracy that the US had during that time. It is an idea that holds true to today. We see culture today as commodified and delivered to consumers. Mainstream culture is a Capitalist enterprise that seeks profit, but doesn't take into account humanity. This film shows a counterculture, hippie culture, that seeks to exist outside the legal marketplace where everything has a price, even democracy can be bought and manipulated to become a perverted form of government. So I guess the question which grows out of George's monologue is are you really free? And that seems to be what hippies were seeking. To be free.
As they drove through the Southern town I was wondering what state they were in? Was it Texas or Arkansas? I guess it was a generalized depiction of a small Southern town claiming that they were all the same. And what the small town Southerners do to the hippie bikers is brutal. The murder of George is a violent and bastardly act. Before George dies he talks about why the townsfolk don't like Hopper or Fonda. He says it's because the hippies represent freedom. Freedom is easy to talk about, but harder to live when your being bought and sold in the marketplace. I took this as the writers of the film saying the Capitalism overruled any notions of democracy that the US had during that time. It is an idea that holds true to today. We see culture today as commodified and delivered to consumers. Mainstream culture is a Capitalist enterprise that seeks profit, but doesn't take into account humanity. This film shows a counterculture, hippie culture, that seeks to exist outside the legal marketplace where everything has a price, even democracy can be bought and manipulated to become a perverted form of government. So I guess the question which grows out of George's monologue is are you really free? And that seems to be what hippies were seeking. To be free.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Thoughts on The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
I've started watching films from a suggested film list that came along with orientation for my MFA degree in screenwriting. So far I've watched Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Gone With the Wind, The Treasures of the Sierra Madre, Psycho, and The Third Man. The Treasures of Sierra Madre was a film about obsession with gold. The character played by Humphrey Bogart becomes so obsessed with Gold that he finally goes crazy and resorts to violence to take all the gold. Bogart's character is much different than his character in Casablanca. Rick is smooth and suave as an expat bar owner in Casablanca. He is willing to risk his life so that his former lover can escape with her scientist husband to the US. In Sierra Madre he is a low life. He begins the film by begging for money on the streets of Tampico in Mexico.
Bogart and his friends head to the mountains after coming into a little sum of money to mine for gold. They find a small haul and mine it. Yet the story really begins after they decide to head back to civilization. Here the group splits up and Bogart tries to kill his partner. His partner lives and Bogart is murdered by bandits. In the end no one gets the gold.
Yet it's the obsession that stays with the viewer. The image of Bogart's bearded face with his crazy eyes; obsessed with gold, willing to kill his partner for his share. The length humanity is willing to go for wealth becomes a moral tale that instructs us to head the warning of the old man in the film. I try to live my life not obsessed with money. But it is difficult. Money is what makes the World go round. This film is a reminder to me to not be so obsessed with money or posessions. Life is too short.
Bogart and his friends head to the mountains after coming into a little sum of money to mine for gold. They find a small haul and mine it. Yet the story really begins after they decide to head back to civilization. Here the group splits up and Bogart tries to kill his partner. His partner lives and Bogart is murdered by bandits. In the end no one gets the gold.
Yet it's the obsession that stays with the viewer. The image of Bogart's bearded face with his crazy eyes; obsessed with gold, willing to kill his partner for his share. The length humanity is willing to go for wealth becomes a moral tale that instructs us to head the warning of the old man in the film. I try to live my life not obsessed with money. But it is difficult. Money is what makes the World go round. This film is a reminder to me to not be so obsessed with money or posessions. Life is too short.
Brooklyn, not the place, the film!
This was a romantic comedy set in 1950's Ireland and Brooklyn. It's based on a Colm Toibin novel that was a New York Times bestseller. I saw the film twice. When I went the second time I saw it with my Father and my aunt. My aunt is Irish. She has been to Ireland, so I thought she would really like the film. It is a film that is told from a woman's perspective. And many of the characters and situations deal with women.
The film centers around the choices the lead character has to make; does she stay in Ireland? Does she marry Tony or Jim? Does she leave her mother in Ireland? Which place does she prefer, Ireland or Brooklyn? I suppose the title answers the last question.
I really liked how the film taps into that feeling of wanting to go to another place and start anew because where you are isn't working out. Ellis had no full time job and no marriage prospects when she was in Ireland. Yet she moves to Brooklyn and has a full time job, night school, and a love interest. Initially she is homesick. After she meets Tony she isn't homesick anymore.
Where I live you heard it a lot. This place has no jobs. There isn't anything to do. It's out in the middle of nowhere. I've left and returned. I don't know if I will leave again. Only to return. Are we really free to choose our fates? Are we just atoms bouncing around in a predictable, fated pattern? Or can we choose of our own free will? Do we really know where we will end up? Who can say? Is it God's plan? Or does man, or in this case woman, have a choice over what happens to our fate?
I think this film is a good example of the development of character. It's story was strong. I can't wait to get the book and read it, and watch the film again.
The film centers around the choices the lead character has to make; does she stay in Ireland? Does she marry Tony or Jim? Does she leave her mother in Ireland? Which place does she prefer, Ireland or Brooklyn? I suppose the title answers the last question.
I really liked how the film taps into that feeling of wanting to go to another place and start anew because where you are isn't working out. Ellis had no full time job and no marriage prospects when she was in Ireland. Yet she moves to Brooklyn and has a full time job, night school, and a love interest. Initially she is homesick. After she meets Tony she isn't homesick anymore.
Where I live you heard it a lot. This place has no jobs. There isn't anything to do. It's out in the middle of nowhere. I've left and returned. I don't know if I will leave again. Only to return. Are we really free to choose our fates? Are we just atoms bouncing around in a predictable, fated pattern? Or can we choose of our own free will? Do we really know where we will end up? Who can say? Is it God's plan? Or does man, or in this case woman, have a choice over what happens to our fate?
I think this film is a good example of the development of character. It's story was strong. I can't wait to get the book and read it, and watch the film again.
Trumbo, a great film
Trumbo is a great film. Especially for film historians. It delves deep into the HUAC committee and it's affect on Hollywood. Trumbo is it's lead character and biggest star writer. This was back in the Golden Age of Hollywood where stars meant some, but not as much as they do today. Studios also played a bigger role. They made film after film until TV came along and caused a restructuring in the industry. Anyway numerous characters from film history grace the screen in this picture. Trumbo himself, like so many screenwriters, is little known even though he penned some of the best films of his era. He never aspired to more then a screenwriter and lived a middle class life.
After Trumbo gets out of prison for contempt of Congress he has to figure out how to make a living as a screenwriter even though he is blacklisted. He manages to make living from writing by using other screenwriters to submit his work. He even wins an Oscar for Roman Holiday and someone else has to accept his golden statue. The pressures that Trumbo and his family had to endure during the time he was on the blacklist were great. In the film you can see the hardships the McCarthyism wrought on so many people. Screenwriters, teachers, and others were all effected by McCarthyism.
I thought Bryan Cranston did a hell of a job on the film. Trumbo is an odd character, and Cranston shows Trumbo at his best and his worst.
It's too bad McCarthyism ruined so many lives. It didn't have to. There could have been some other way.
After Trumbo gets out of prison for contempt of Congress he has to figure out how to make a living as a screenwriter even though he is blacklisted. He manages to make living from writing by using other screenwriters to submit his work. He even wins an Oscar for Roman Holiday and someone else has to accept his golden statue. The pressures that Trumbo and his family had to endure during the time he was on the blacklist were great. In the film you can see the hardships the McCarthyism wrought on so many people. Screenwriters, teachers, and others were all effected by McCarthyism.
I thought Bryan Cranston did a hell of a job on the film. Trumbo is an odd character, and Cranston shows Trumbo at his best and his worst.
It's too bad McCarthyism ruined so many lives. It didn't have to. There could have been some other way.
Thoughts about Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke
This film is hilarious. I was laughing all the way through. And I was sober! The jokes work well. The pot humor is especially funny. The cops are very much keystone cops. I was left wanting more. Too bad it was only an hour and a half film. Cheech and Chong are great characters. They play every moment well. The story was good too. Every sequence plays up some kind of joke.
I watched this film in my living room. It was on a big TV. I bought the copy of a double feature DVD from amazon.com. Afterward I realized I could have rented it for 3.99. I don't think it made much difference in price. At numerous moments in the film I wanted to toke. Yet I had to wait until the next day and even then, I only had some burritos and taco salad which is a poor substitute for weed. All the talk about weed in the movie really gave me a big craving for a joint. I'd sure like a joint like Chong smokes in the film. Big, round and full of some great strain from Cali. It's too bad New York is so lame when it comes to legalization. Only recently has the government in Albany started to de-criminalize weed. There is a medicinal store now open. In LA I read that there is a "speedweed" distributor that delivers weed like a pizza. Well, in NY we are just starting to legalize the weed.
Yet it's films like Cheech and Chong that paved the way for acceptance of weed as recreational drug like alcohol. I can't remember a film which pokes so much fun at the drug culture and the cops which are out to control it. The scenes of people being stoned are in stark contrast to the people in Reefer Madness. There isn't any violence in Cheech and Chong. It doesn't make people crazy or violent. It's just about smoking up and getting a mellow feeling. Now I'm not too blind to say the weed doesn't have negative side effects, but films like Up in Smoke show that it isn't anymore harmful than hard liquor.
I'm currently writing a paper about Hollywood on Drugs and this is the first film in the "weed" category. I'm looking to see how "weed" has been depicted in films from the beginning of films about it to the present day. I started by selecting numerous films and have committed to watching each one, perhaps several times, and then seeing how films with weed in them have changed.
I think it's a relevant topic considering the current wave of legalizations in the US.
More posts to follow.
I watched this film in my living room. It was on a big TV. I bought the copy of a double feature DVD from amazon.com. Afterward I realized I could have rented it for 3.99. I don't think it made much difference in price. At numerous moments in the film I wanted to toke. Yet I had to wait until the next day and even then, I only had some burritos and taco salad which is a poor substitute for weed. All the talk about weed in the movie really gave me a big craving for a joint. I'd sure like a joint like Chong smokes in the film. Big, round and full of some great strain from Cali. It's too bad New York is so lame when it comes to legalization. Only recently has the government in Albany started to de-criminalize weed. There is a medicinal store now open. In LA I read that there is a "speedweed" distributor that delivers weed like a pizza. Well, in NY we are just starting to legalize the weed.
Yet it's films like Cheech and Chong that paved the way for acceptance of weed as recreational drug like alcohol. I can't remember a film which pokes so much fun at the drug culture and the cops which are out to control it. The scenes of people being stoned are in stark contrast to the people in Reefer Madness. There isn't any violence in Cheech and Chong. It doesn't make people crazy or violent. It's just about smoking up and getting a mellow feeling. Now I'm not too blind to say the weed doesn't have negative side effects, but films like Up in Smoke show that it isn't anymore harmful than hard liquor.
I'm currently writing a paper about Hollywood on Drugs and this is the first film in the "weed" category. I'm looking to see how "weed" has been depicted in films from the beginning of films about it to the present day. I started by selecting numerous films and have committed to watching each one, perhaps several times, and then seeing how films with weed in them have changed.
I think it's a relevant topic considering the current wave of legalizations in the US.
More posts to follow.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)